The Russian bourgeois revolution of 1905 discovered one extraordinarily original turn in world history: in one of the most backward capitalist countries, unprecedented breadth and force of the strike movement was achieved for the first time in the world. In the first month alone of 1905, the number of strikers exceeded tenfold the average annual number of strikers for the preceding 10 years (1895–1904), and from January to October 1905 strikes grew continuously and on an enormous scale. Backward Russia, under the influence of a series of completely distinctive historical conditions, was the first to show the world not only the leap-like growth of the self-activity of oppressed masses during revolution (this has occurred in all great revolutions), but also the significance of the proletariat, infinitely higher than its share in the population, the combination of economic and political strike, with the transformation of the latter into armed insurrection, the birth of a new form of mass struggle and mass organization of classes oppressed by capitalism – the Soviets.

Page seventy-seven of V. I. Lenin's manuscript "The Infantile Disorder of 'Leftism' in Communism." – April–May 1920.

The February and October revolutions of 1917 brought the Soviets to comprehensive development on a national scale, and then to their victory in the proletarian, socialist transformation. And less than two years later, the international character of the Soviets was revealed – the spread of this form of struggle and organization to the world labor movement, the historical mission of the Soviets to be the grave-digger, the heir, the successor of bourgeois parliamentarism, of bourgeois democracy generally.

Moreover. History of the labor movement now shows that in all countries it is destined to (and has already begun to) experience the struggle of nascent, strengthening, advancing toward victory communism primarily and chiefly against its own (for each country) "Menshevism," i.e., opportunism and social-chauvinism; secondly – and as, so to speak, a supplement – against "left" communism. The first struggle has unfolded in all countries without a single, apparently, exception, as the struggle between the II Internationale (now already actually destroyed) and the III Internationale. The second struggle is observed in Germany, in England, in Italy, in America (at least a certain portion of the "Industrial Workers of the World" and anarcho-syndicalist trends uphold the errors of left communism alongside the almost universal, almost exclusive recognition of the Soviet system), and in France (the attitude of a portion of former syndicalists toward the political party and toward parliamentarism, again alongside recognition of the Soviet system), i.e., undoubtedly, on a scale not only international, but world-wide.

But, undergoing everywhere essentially homogeneous preparatory schooling for victory over the bourgeoisie, the labor movement of each country accomplishes this development in its own way. Moreover, the large, advanced capitalist countries progress along this road far more rapidly than Bolshevism, which was given by history a fifteen-year period to prepare itself, as an organized political trend, for victory. The III Internationale, in so short a period as one year, has already achieved a decisive victory, defeated the II, yellow, social-chauvinist Internationale, which only a few months earlier was incomparably stronger than the III, seemed solid and mighty, enjoyed comprehensive – direct and indirect, material (ministerial posts, passports, press) and ideological – aid from world bourgeoisie.

The whole matter now lies in this: that communists of each country fully consciously take into account both the fundamental, principled tasks of struggle against opportunism and "left" doctrinairism, and the concrete peculiarities which this struggle assumes and inevitably must assume in each separate country, in accordance with the distinctive features of its economy, politics, culture, its national composition (Ireland, etc.), its colonies, its religious divisions, etc., and so forth. Everywhere dissatisfaction with the II Internationale is felt, spreads and grows – both for its opportunism and for its inability or incapacity to create a truly centralized, truly directing center capable of directing the international tactics of the revolutionary proletariat in its struggle for a world Soviet republic. It is necessary to give ourselves clear account that such a directing center cannot be constructed in any way whatsoever on the basis of stereotyping, on mechanical leveling, the identification of tactical rules of struggle. So long as national and state differences between peoples and countries exist – and these differences will persist for a very, very long time even after the dictatorship of the proletariat is established on a world scale – the unity of international tactics of the communist labor movement of all countries requires not the elimination of diversity, not the obliteration of national differences (this is a futile fantasy for the present moment), but such an application of the fundamental principles of communism (Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat) which would correctly modify these principles in particulars, correctly adapt, apply them to national and national-state differences. To investigate, study, seek out, divine, grasp the nationally-distinctive, nationally-specific in the concrete approaches of each country to the resolution of the single international task, to victory over opportunism and left doctrinairism within the labor movement, to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, to the establishment of the Soviet republic and proletarian dictatorship – herein lies the principal task of the historical moment being experienced by all advanced (and not only advanced) countries. The principal – of course, is still far, far from being everything, but the principal – has already been accomplished in winning over the vanguard of the working class, in its transition to the side of Soviet power against parliamentarism, to the side of the dictatorship of the proletariat against bourgeois democracy. Now all forces, all attention must be concentrated on the following step, which seems – and from a certain point of view actually is – less fundamental, but which is all the more practically close to the practical resolution of the task, namely: on the discovery of the form of transition or approach to proletarian revolution.

The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. This is the principal thing. Without this one cannot take even the first step toward victory. But from this it is still quite far to victory. One cannot win with the vanguard alone. To throw the vanguard alone into decisive battle, while the entire class, while broad masses have not yet taken the position either of direct support for the vanguard or at least of benevolent neutrality toward it and complete inability to support its opponents, would be not only folly but crime. And for the entire class actually to come to such a position, for broad masses of the laboring and capital-oppressed actually to arrive at such a position, propaganda and agitation alone are insufficient. What is needed is the masses' own political experience. Such is the fundamental law of all great revolutions, confirmed now with striking force and distinctness not only by Russia but by Germany as well. Not only the uncultured, frequently illiterate masses of Russia, but also the highly cultured, completely literate masses of Germany had to experience on their own hide all the impotence, all the spinelessness, all the helplessness, all the servility before the bourgeoisie, all the baseness of the government of the knights of the II Internationale, the whole inevitability of the dictatorship of extreme reactionaries (Kornilov in Russia{41}, Kapp and Co. in Germany{42}), as the sole alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat, in order decisively to turn toward communism.

The immediate task of the conscious vanguard in the international labor movement, i.e., of communist parties, groups, trends – is to be able to bring broad (now still in the majority of cases dormant, apathetic, routine-bound, inert, unawakened) masses to this new position of theirs, or more precisely, to be able to direct not only one's own party, but these masses as well during their approach, their transition to a new position. If the first historical task (to win over the conscious vanguard of the proletariat to the side of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the working class) could not be resolved without complete, ideological and political victory over opportunism and social-chauvinism, then the second task, which is now becoming immediate and which consists in the ability to bring the masses to the new position capable of ensuring the victory of the vanguard in revolution, this immediate task cannot be accomplished without the liquidation of left doctrinairism, without complete overcoming of its errors, without ridding ourselves of them.

So long as the question concerned (and insofar as it still concerns) winning over to the side of communism the vanguard of the proletariat, to that extent propaganda was placed in the first rank; even circles with all the weaknesses of circle-ism are useful here and yield fruitful results. When the question concerns the practical action of masses, the disposition – if one may so express it – of million-strong armies, the positioning of all class forces of a given society for the final and decisive battle, then with propagandistic skills alone, with the mere repetition of the truths of "pure" communism, nothing can be achieved. Here one must count not in thousands, as in essence the propagandist, the member of a small group that has not yet led masses, counts; here one must count in millions and tens of millions. Here one must ask oneself not only whether we have convinced the vanguard of the revolutionary class, but also whether the historically effective forces of all classes, necessarily all classes without exception of a given society, are positioned in such a manner that the decisive battle is already fully ripe – in such a manner that (1) all hostile class forces arrayed against us are sufficiently entangled, have sufficiently quarreled with one another, sufficiently exhausted themselves in a struggle that exceeds their strength; that (2) all wavering, unstable, vacillating, intermediate elements, i.e., the petty bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeois democracy in distinction from the bourgeoisie, have sufficiently exposed themselves before the people, sufficiently discredited themselves through their practical bankruptcy; that (3) in the proletariat there has begun and is mightily rising a mass sentiment in favor of supporting the most decisive, selflessly bold, revolutionary actions against the bourgeoisie. Then the revolution is ripe, then our victory, if we have correctly taken into account all the conditions outlined above, briefly sketched above, and correctly chosen the moment, our victory is assured.

The divergences between Churchills and Lloyd Georges – these political types exist in all countries, with negligible national differences – on the one hand; then, between Hendersons and Lloyd Georges, on the other, are completely unimportant and petty from the perspective of pure, i.e., abstract, i.e., not yet ripened into practical, mass, political action, communism. But from the perspective of this practical action of masses, these differences are extremely, extremely important. In taking them into account, in determining the moment of complete ripeness of the inevitable conflicts between these "friends," which weaken and exhaust all the "friends" taken together, – everything lies, the entire task of the communist who wishes to be not only a conscious, convinced, ideological propagandist, but also a practical leader of masses in revolution. One must combine the strictest devotion to the ideas of communism with the ability to undertake all necessary practical compromises, maneuvering, accommodations, zigzags, retreats and so forth, in order to accelerate the implementation and exhaustion of the political power of the Hendersons (heroes of the II Internationale, if we speak not of individual persons, but of representatives of petty-bourgeois democracy calling themselves socialists); to accelerate their inevitable practical bankruptcy, which enlightens the masses precisely in our spirit, precisely in the direction of communism; to accelerate the inevitable frictions, quarrels, conflicts, the complete dissolution between the Hendersons – Lloyd Georges – Churchills (Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries – Cadets – monarchists; Scheidemanns – bourgeoisie – Kappists, etc.); and to correctly choose such a moment of maximum dissolution between all these "pillars of sacred private property," in order that through the decisive offensive of the proletariat we may defeat them all and seize political power.

History in general, the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, many-sided, livelier, "more cunning," than even the best parties imagine, than the most conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes imagine. This is understandable, for the best vanguards express the consciousness, will, passion, imagination of tens of thousands, while revolutions are accomplished, in moments of special upsurge and strain of all human capacities, through the consciousness, will, passion, imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by the sharpest class struggle. From this flow two very important practical conclusions: first, that the revolutionary class, in order to accomplish its task, must be able to master all, without the slightest exception, forms or aspects of social activity (completing after the conquest of political power, sometimes with great risk and enormous danger, what it failed to complete before this conquest); second, that the revolutionary class must be ready for the swiftest and most unexpected changes from one form to another.

Everyone will agree that it would be unreasonable or even criminal conduct of an army that does not prepare itself to master all types of weapons, all means and methods of struggle which the enemy possesses or may possess. But this applies even more to politics than to military affairs. In politics it is even less possible to know in advance which means of struggle will prove applicable and advantageous for us under those or other future conditions. Not possessing all means of struggle, we can suffer enormous – sometimes even decisive – defeat if changes in the position of other classes, independent of our will, place on the order of the day such a form of activity in which we are especially weak. Possessing all means of struggle, we win surely, once we represent the interests of a genuinely advanced, genuinely revolutionary class, even if circumstances do not permit us to employ the weapon most dangerous to the enemy, the weapon striking most swiftly the mortal blows. Inexperienced revolutionaries often think that legal means of struggle are opportunistic, for the bourgeoisie has especially often (particularly in "peaceful," non-revolutionary times) deceived and fooled the workers on this terrain; – whereas illegal means of struggle are revolutionary. But this is incorrect. What is correct is that parties and leaders are opportunists and betrayers of the working class who do not know how to or do not wish (not: I cannot, but: I do not wish) to employ illegal means of struggle under such conditions, for example, as during the imperialist war of 1914–1918, when the bourgeoisie of the freest democratic countries with unprecedented audacity and ferocity deceived the workers, forbidding the truth to be spoken about the predatory character of the war. But revolutionaries who cannot combine illegal forms of struggle with all legal forms are quite poor revolutionaries. It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is blazing, when everyone and anyone comes over to the revolution from simple enthusiasm, from fashion, even sometimes from personal career interests. "Deliverance" from such would-be revolutionaries costs the proletariat, after its victory, the most difficult labors, one might say, agonizing torment. It is far more difficult – and far more valuable – to be able to be a revolutionary when there are not yet conditions for direct, open, genuinely mass, genuinely revolutionary struggle, to be able to defend the interests of revolution (in propaganda, agitation, organization) in non-revolutionary institutions, and often directly reactionary ones, in a non-revolutionary atmosphere, among masses incapable of immediately grasping the necessity of revolutionary methods of action. To be able to find, to feel one's way toward, to correctly determine the concrete path or particular turn of events leading the masses to genuine, decisive, final, great revolutionary struggle – in this lies the principal task of contemporary communism in Western Europe and America.

Example: England. We cannot know – and no one is capable of determining in advance – how soon genuine proletarian revolution will break out there and what occasion will most awaken, ignite, spur to struggle the very broad, now still dormant masses. We are therefore obliged to conduct all our preparatory work in such a way as to be shod (as the late Plekhanov liked to say when he was a Marxist and revolutionary) on all four feet. It is possible that "it will break through," that "the ice will crack" via a parliamentary crisis; it is possible that the crisis flowing from hopelessly entangled, increasingly painfully developing and sharpening colonial and imperialist contradictions; it is possible that something else, etc. We are speaking not about what struggle will decide the fate of proletarian revolution in England (this question occasions no doubts among communists, this question is settled for all of us and settled firmly), we are speaking about that occasion which will impel the now still dormant proletarian masses to come into motion and lead them directly to revolution. Let us not forget that, for example, in the bourgeois French republic, in circumstances which both from the international and from the internal side were a hundred times less revolutionary than now, it sufficed to have such an "unexpected" and such a "minor" occasion as one of thousands and thousands of dishonorable deeds of reactionary militarism (the Dreyfus Affair{43}), to lead the people directly to civil war!

Communists must in England use continuously, unceasingly, unfailingly and parliamentary elections, and all the vicissitudes of Irish, colonial, world-imperialist policy of the British government, and all other spheres, realms, aspects of social life, working in all of them in a new way, in a communist way, in the spirit not of the II but of the III Internationale. I have not the time and space here to describe the methods of "Russian," "Bolshevik" participation in parliamentary elections and parliamentary struggle, but I can assure foreign communists that this was in no way like ordinary Western European parliamentary campaigns. From this one often draws the conclusion: "Well, that was in Russia, but our parliamentarism is different." This conclusion is incorrect. Communists exist in the world, supporters of the III Internationale in all countries, precisely in order to completely remake, along the entire line, in all spheres of life, the old socialist, trade-unionist, syndicalist, parliamentary work into new, communist work. Opportunistic and purely bourgeois, careerist, fraudulently-capitalist elements were always abundantly present in our elections as well. Communists in Western Europe and America must learn to create a new, unusual, non-opportunistic, non-careerist parliamentarism: in order that the party of communists give its slogans, in order that genuine proletarians with the help of unorganized and thoroughly beaten-down poor folk scatter and distribute leaflets, visit and canvass workers' apartments, the huts of rural proletarians and backward (in Europe, fortunately, far fewer backward villages than we have, and in England very few) peasants, penetrate into the most popular taverns, infiltrate the most popular unions, societies, chance gatherings, speak with the people not in learned fashion (and not very parliamentarily), chase not a whit after "a seat" in parliament, but everywhere awakened thought, drew the masses in, caught the bourgeoisie on its word, used the apparatus created by it, the elections appointed by it, the calls made by it to all the people, familiarized the people with Bolshevism as never succeeded before (under bourgeois rule) outside the context of elections (not counting, of course, the moment of great strikes, when such an apparatus of nation-wide agitation worked for us even more intensely). To do this in Western Europe and America is very difficult, very and very difficult, but this can be done and must be done, for without labor the tasks of communism generally cannot be solved, and one must labor over the solution of practical tasks, increasingly diverse, increasingly connected with all branches of social life, increasingly winning over one branch, one sphere after another from the bourgeoisie.

In that same England, one must also in a new way (not socialistically but communistically, not reformistically but revolutionarily) organize the work of propaganda, agitation, organization in the army and among the oppressed and disenfranchised nationalities of "its own" state (Ireland, colonies). For all these spheres of social life in the epoch of imperialism generally, and now after the war which has tortured the peoples and is rapidly opening their eyes to the truth (namely: that tens of millions have been killed and maimed solely for the sake of settling the question of whether English or German predators will plunder more countries), – all these spheres of social life are particularly filled with combustible material and create particularly many occasions for conflicts, crises, the sharpening of class struggle. We do not know and cannot know which spark – out of that abyss of sparks now flying everywhere in all countries, under the influence of the economic and political world crisis – will prove capable of igniting a fire, in the sense of a special awakening of masses, and we are therefore obliged with our new, communist principles to set about the "processing" of all and every, even the most ancient, musty and apparently hopeless terrain, for otherwise we shall not be equal to the task, shall not be comprehensive, shall not master all types of weapons, shall not prepare ourselves either for victory over the bourgeoisie (which has arranged – and now disrupted – all sides of social life in a bourgeois fashion), or for the impending communist reorganization of all life after this victory.

After the proletarian revolution in Russia and the unexpected, for the bourgeoisie and philistines, victories of this revolution on an international scale, the whole world has now become different, the bourgeoisie everywhere has also become different. It is terrified of "Bolshevism," enraged at it almost to madness, and precisely for this reason it, on the one hand, accelerates the development of events, while on the other hand, concentrates attention on the violent suppression of Bolshevism, thereby weakening its position on a whole series of other terrains. Both these circumstances communists of all advanced countries must take into account in their tactics.

When Russian Cadets and Kerensky raised wild persecution against the Bolsheviks – especially from April 1917 and even more in June and July 1917 – they "overcooked it." Millions of copies of bourgeois newspapers, screaming against the Bolsheviks in all possible ways, helped draw the masses into forming an assessment of Bolshevism, but besides newspapers, all social life was, precisely thanks to the "zeal" of the bourgeoisie, saturated with disputes about Bolshevism. Now on an international scale millionaires of all countries are conducting themselves in such a way that we must be sincerely grateful to them. They persecute Bolshevism with the same zeal with which Kerensky and Co. persecuted it; they "overcook it" in the same way and likewise help us, as did Kerensky. When the French bourgeoisie makes Bolshevism the central point of electoral agitation, cursing Bolshevism against relatively moderate or wavering socialists; – when the American bourgeoisie, completely losing its head, seizes thousands and thousands of people on suspicion of Bolshevism and creates an atmosphere of panic, spreading news of Bolshevik conspiracies everywhere; – when the English "most solid" bourgeoisie in the world, for all its intelligence and experience, perpetrates incredible stupidities, founds the richest "societies for struggle against Bolshevism," creates special literature about Bolshevism, hires additional quantities of scholars, agitators, priests for the struggle against Bolshevism, – we must bow and thank the gentlemen capitalists. They are working for us. They are helping us interest the masses in the question of the essence and significance of Bolshevism. And they cannot act otherwise, for "silence," to suppress Bolshevism, they no longer succeed.

But at the same time the bourgeoisie sees in Bolshevism almost only one of its aspects: uprising, violence, terror; the bourgeoisie therefore seeks to prepare itself especially against resistance and opposition on this terrain. It is possible that in individual cases, in individual countries, for this or that short interval of time, it will succeed: one must reckon with such a possibility, and there is nothing frightening for us whatsoever in the fact that it will succeed. Communism "grows" decisively from all aspects of social life, its sprouts exist decisively everywhere, the "infection" (if one employs the favorite comparison of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois police and the most "pleasant" to them) has penetrated into the organism quite firmly and saturated the entire organism thoroughly. If one particular outlet is "plugged" with special care, the "infection" will find itself another outlet, sometimes the most unexpected. Life will have its way. Let the bourgeoisie thrash about, rage to madness, overcook things, perpetrate stupidities, take revenge in advance on the Bolsheviks and seek to slaughter (in India, in Hungary, in Germany, etc.) extra hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of tomorrow's or yesterday's Bolsheviks: in acting thus, the bourgeoisie acts as all classes condemned by history to perish have acted. Communists must know that the future in any case belongs to them, and therefore we can (and must) combine the greatest passion in the great revolutionary struggle with the most cold-blooded and sober assessment of the frenzied gyrations of the bourgeoisie. The Russian revolution was broken cruelly in 1905; Russian Bolsheviks were broken in July 1917; German communists were slaughtered over 15,000 through the clever provocation and adroit maneuvers of Scheidemann and Noske in conjunction with the bourgeoisie and monarchist generals; in Finland and Hungary white terror rages. But in all cases and in all countries communism is tempered and grows; its roots are so deep that persecutions do not weaken, do not exhaust, but strengthen it. There is lacking only one thing for us to advance toward victory with greater confidence and firmness, namely: everywhere and thoroughly thought-through consciousness among all communists of all countries of the necessity to be maximally flexible in their tactics. Splendid growing communism, especially in advanced countries, now lacks precisely this consciousness and the ability to apply this consciousness in practice.

A useful lesson could have been (and should have been) what happened to such highly learned Marxists and devoted to socialism leaders of the II Internationale as Kautsky, Otto Bauer, and others. They fully understood the necessity of flexible tactics, they studied and taught others Marxist dialectics (and much of what they accomplished in this regard will forever remain a valuable acquisition of socialist literature), but in the application of this dialectics they made such an error or proved in practice to be such non-dialecticians, proved to be people who so failed to account for the swift change of forms and the swift infilling of old forms with new content, that their fate is scarcely more enviable than that of Hyndman, Ghed, and Plekhanov. The basic cause of their bankruptcy consisted in this: that they "stared at" one definite form of growth of the labor movement and socialism, forgot about its one-sidedness, feared to perceive that sharp rupture which, by force of objective conditions, became inevitable, and continued to insist on simple, memorized, at first glance unquestionable truths: three is greater than two. But politics is more similar to algebra than to arithmetic, and even more similar to higher mathematics than to elementary mathematics. In reality all old forms of the socialist movement became infilled with new content, and therefore before the figures there appeared a new sign: "minus," and our wise men stubbornly continued (and continue) to assure themselves and others that "minus three" is greater than "minus two."

One must attempt to ensure that the same error does not occur with communists, only from the other side, or, more precisely, – that the same error, only from the other side, made by "left" communists, be quickly corrected and exhausted more rapidly, more painlessly for the organism. Left doctrinairism is also an error, not only right doctrinairism. Of course, the error of left doctrinairism in communism is, at the present moment, a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than the error of right doctrinairism (i.e., social-chauvinism and Kaustkyanism), but only because it is so precisely because left communism is a very young trend, only just coming into being. Only for this reason can the disease, under certain conditions, be easily cured, and it is necessary to set about its cure with maximum energy.

Old forms burst because it turned out that the new content in them – content anti-proletarian, reactionary – had achieved immense development. We have now, from the perspective of the development of international communism, such solid, such strong, such mighty content of work (for Soviet power, for the dictatorship of the proletariat), that it can and must manifest itself in any form, both new and old, can and must transform, overcome, subject to itself all forms, not only new but old as well, – not in order to reconcile ourselves with the old, but in order to be able to make all and every, new and old forms, the instrument of complete and final, decisive and irreversible victory of communism.

Communists must exert all efforts in order to direct the labor movement and social development generally along the most direct and swiftest path toward world victory of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an indisputable truth. But it suffices to take a small step further – seemingly a step in the same direction – and truth transforms into error. It suffices to say, as German and English left communists say, that we recognize only one, only the direct path, that we do not permit maneuvering, accommodation, compromise, and this already will be an error capable of causing, in part already has caused and causes, serious harm to communism. Right doctrinairism leaned on the recognition of only old forms and went bankrupt entirely, not noticing the new content. Left doctrinairism leans on the unconditional negation of certain old forms, not seeing that new content breaks through to itself a path through all and every form, that our obligation, as communists, is to master all forms, to learn with maximum swiftness to supplement one form with another, replace one with another, adapt our tactics to every such change, called forth not by our class or not by our efforts.

World revolution has been so mightily propelled and accelerated by the horrors, infamies, abominations of world imperialist war, by the hopelessness of the situation it created, – this revolution is developing in breadth and depth with such excellent swiftness, with such magnificent richness of alternating forms, with such instructive practical refutation of every doctrinairism, that there are all grounds for hope in the swift and complete cure of the international communist movement of the infantile disorder of "left" communism.

April 27, 1920.